January 21, 2008

It will be "a fair, true portrait" — and don't be so dubious. His Nixon movie is pretty good. Stone plans to focus on Bush's "relationship with his father, President George H.W. Bush, his wild youth, and his conversion to Christianity."

"It will contain surprises for Bush supporters and his detractors," said Stone.

Who's the right actor to play George Bush? Josh Brolin. (Here's a photo slideshow. See the resemblance?)

[Stone] said Brolin was better looking than Bush, "but has the same drive and charisma that Americans identify with Bush, who has some of that old-time movie-star swagger."

"[In his film 'JFK']....This silly Oliver Stone came up with ten groups that had a motive and he’s got all ten groups involved in the assassination. I go into great depth for the first time on the movie, and show what he said, and then show he committed cinematic murder. His movie is one continuous lie. I should amend that by saying he did have the correct date, location, and victims, but other than that, it was one continuous lie, and yet millions saw his movie and walked out thinking that there was a vast conspiracy.

To show you how unfair he was in the presentation of the evidence. I mentioned fifty-three separate pieces of evidence pointing irresistibly to the guilt of Oswald, and Oliver Stone in his three hour and eight minute movie could not put in one of those fifty-three pieces. I guess poor Oliver just didn’t have enough time to do that."

--History News Network interview with Vincent Bugliosi, author of 'Reclaiming History,' an analysis of the assassination.

I'm extremely dubious. Not because of Stone's politics. Because of his timing. With Nixon we had the chance to see the whole story played out, for a good long while after he left.

Making a movie about Bush now has utterly no chance to say anything about him the news hasn't already said. It can say nothing new because there is no history yet about the Bush administration. No new documents, no new insights.

Movie's are Oliver Stone's blogs. He wants to say his part to satisfy his ego and to maybe add a unique take. But he has nothing say on this topic. It can only be empty and incomplete. He should wait 20 years. Impatience is not art's friend.

Of course Hopkins looks nothing like Nixon, and I remember when I went to see "Nixon" thinking "This can't possibly work." But it did, because Hopkins is such a great actor. And "JFK" is a great movie, despite being full of crackpot conspiracy theories. Stone makes excellent movies; you just have to accept that they are works of fiction and enjoy them as such.

I've always had a crush on Josh, since Goonies. He's very good looking. I'm going to feel very uncomfortable watching him play someone that disgusts me. But he can act...did you see No Country For Old Men?

I wonder what his mother-in-law, Barbra Streisand, thinks of his new role?

I could see Jessica Lange playing Laura, or maybe Anne Hathaway as the younger Laura (you remember the younger Laura, the one who ran over and killed her boyfriend with her car--google it).

Oliver Stone made that stupid 9/11 movie a couple years ago--again an event too current (I believe) to have any honest retrospection. I agree with Paddy on this one.

I wonder if Josh is as much an idiot as his father. Papa Brolin was on the Chaz and AJ Show last year talking about his movie Hunting Party and when one of the hosts mentioned it was the 6th anniversary of 9/11, Brolin says Right, oh yeah, happy 9/11." (the show was on September 11, 2007).

He's nothing more than a scumbag. I would never pay a red cent to see him in anything.

Might be Ann's worst post ever (/comic book slobbery). The Nixon movie was AWFUL, borderline unwatchable. Nixon as portrayed in that film would never have gotten vote #1 (someone else said it, but that captures it).

The half-baked efforts to add balance consisted of making him look like a simpering p*ssy and were the product of animus and disdain. Nixon was complex, the crappy Stone version was not.

The movie "Dick" was actually much better even though it was silly, and Dan Hedaya (Nick Tortelli on "Cheers") was a MUCH better Nixon (strange for me to write, b/c Hopkins' Lecter and Stevens are two of my favorite all-time performances).

zeb quinn is exactly right about the timing. Stone doesn't want to wait because Bush might (and he will) be much better regarded 20 years from now.

The idea that a Castro rumpswab like Stone would make a fair movie about Bush is laughable.

Stone was such a bootlicking lackey in his Castro movie that even HBO couldn't stomach it, and insisted on changes to note Castro's human rights violations.

It will be amusing if his Bush movie turns out to portray its subject more negatively than his Castro movie did.

Anyway, I would normally say something grumpy about Oliver Stone 's lefty obsessions at this point -- but really, I just don't feel it. Let's be honest, the man is a has-been; who cares what movies he makes? Get back to me when an A-list director does something like this. :)

It is a movie folks. It is called entertainment. Unless of course you depict a Clinton in a bad light- remember the debacle over that P911 movie? Movies, unless they are factual documentaries, are entertainment. Also, if you do not like Mr. Stone vote with your dollars and CHOOSE not to watch his product.

Sorry, Middle Class Guy, I have to disagree. A movie is not just "entertainment" when it is used as a tool for political propaganda--as JFK inarguably was--and I suspect the same will be true of this portrayal of GWB. It is a given that Stone loathes the President. Given that, is it so difficult to admit this movie will be a biased mess? Perhaps you and many others will find it entertaining. As I did with JFK, I will most likely find it offensive and inaccurate.

Hoosier Daddy, one of the notions in many Christian sects, especially of the evangelical variety, is that one may believe in Christianity and even attend church, but must go through a conversion experience before claiming to be a true Christian.

Hoosier Daddy, one of the notions in many Christian sects, especially of the evangelical variety, is that one may believe in Christianity and even attend church, but must go through a conversion experience before claiming to be a true Christian.

Well I'm a Catholic and conversion is generally reserved to those who were either non-believers or came from a non-Christian faith. Stating he converted to Christianity implies to most people he wasn't a Christian to begin with. I'm not familiar with Methodists so I'm not sure if they consider Christians who are non-Methodists as needing conversion.

Ted Turner has announced that he is planning another revisionist mini-series about the civil war. Several stars have agreed to appear including Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Mike Farrell, and Susan Sarandon to be directed by Oliver Stone. There will also be cameo appearance by Sharon Stone's bush. The series will be called the Blue and the Grey.

Well I'm a Catholic and conversion is generally reserved to those who were either non-believers...

After someone has been saved, upon looking back many consider their earlier life as one of non-belief.

(I actually think it's a very awkward construction, but then again I haven't figured out how someone can "be saved" multiple times. Neither have I figured out those folks who claim to be saved, yet haven't actually changed any of their immoral behavior.

Recreation of conversation my wife had with workmate twenty years ago:

Workmate: I've been saved.My Wife: But you still live your boyfriend.Workmate: Yes, but I've been saved.My Wife: And you still do drugs.Workmate: It doesn't matter, I'm saved.

'George' You have your 53 points of how Oswalt did it eh? I am not saying Stones JFK movie was good or acurate, but how about the irefutable evidence ballistic and video that he could not have done it alone. You cane beat physics buddy. Not saying Oswalt didnt do it but it is IMPOSSIBLE for him to have done it alone and that has been fact as shown by evidence for years. Refute that if you can, but you cant.